Seems that the point being made is missed. The point of the op-ed is whether or not Chik-fil-A is acting as a good Christian. Not whether or not the man could tolerate, or would appreciate, the prayer required for the meal. It's about how it's not Christian-like to put a cost on the free meal, and it being considered a lesson in being a good Christian. It's not "giving"... Which WOULD be Christian. It's not about the employee or the man praying. It's about requiring it. OFFERING a prayer is different than REQUIRING it.
If one can't understand the point of the piece, I have nothing further to add.